Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>]

Sorry as the principle author of the taskfile transport for storage.
And all points of distribution under stupid anal EC law apply.

I will vote NO to enforce such brain dead concepts.

See since it is not easy to get all the authors/contributors/surviors to
agree to switch to a new/better/license, it takes only one to say NO to
stop the process of change.

Well here is the one NO, and imposing all modules are GPL is a no can do.

Bye have a nice day!

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Kingsland wrote:

> 
> > My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules in 2.6
> and beyond.
> 
> "David Schwartz" wrote:
> > I'm baffled how you think this is a choice that can be made. The license
> is
> > the GPL itself and even the Linux kernel developers have no power to
> change it.
> 
> Modules are essentially dynamically linked extensions to the GPL kernel. In
> some cases they can be shown to be independent, prior works where GPL can
> reasonably be argued not to apply - which as Linus stated earlier on this
> thread was the original intention of allowing binary-only modules.
> 
> But in most of the more recent cases the driver/module code is written
> specifically for Linux, so it seems more appropriate that they would be
> considered as derived works of the kernel. But those various comments from
> Linus are being taken out of context to somehow justify permission for the
> non-release of source code for binary loadable modules.
> 
> Linux is not pure GPL, it also has the Linus "user program" preamble in
> copying.txt - that preamble plus other LKML posts from Linus are commonly
> used as justifications for non-disclosure of source code to some classes of
> modules.
> 
> But with all due respect, Linus is not the only author of Linux and his
> words to tend to convey an artificial sense of authority or justification
> for such attitudes. Here is a typical example:
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9161119242.html
> 
> All I am suggesting is that the preamble could be extended to clearly state
> the position for kernel binary-only modules, and that the upcoming 2.6
> release might be an opportunity for a quorum of the Linux authors to agree
> to revised wording.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>